I believe we are at a watershed moment in our new 41st Parliament. We have now experienced the first of what I am fearful, and we talk about fear a fair bit, will be one of the many hidden agenda items of the Conservative government.

There was never any discussion in any of the past election campaigns about the need to raise the age at which people receive old age security. If there is a problem, and we do not believe there is, there has never been any discussion among the Canadian people about this problem. Baby boomers, of which I am a member, have been around since I was born in 1952, which, coincidentally, was the year the old age security system actually started.

We all know we will retire and now the Conservatives have created a crisis in order to achieve a different agenda, in order to start rolling back the social safety net of Canada. This is the first step and it is a dangerous first step. We will see more of this in the future I am afraid.

As a wag in Halifax has said, the Prime Minister opened a can of worms with a Swiss army knife and once again the most vulnerable members of society must pay for the excesses of the government. Seniors are just one of a long list of members of our society who, according to the Prime Minister, must accept less from government and should not expect to keep a reasonable standard of living when they reach retirement.

This crisis has been created as a result of a temporary blip caused by baby boomers. It is temporary, so why not find a temporary fix, like perhaps rescinding the corporate tax cuts that have taken so much out of the government treasury?

The government came to office with an enormous structural surplus and it is gone. Not only is it gone but, in their term in office, the Conservatives have created the biggest deficit ever in Canadian history. Now they are saying that the cupboard is bare and that seniors will need e to pay for it. That is not what the NDP believes. We do not believe in going backward. We believe in moving Canada forward, and this is moving backward.

The Prime Minister and the government also tell us not to worry because the Canada pension plan is solvent and that it will not be touched. What they have forgotten to tell us is that Canada pension is inexorably intertwined with the old age security system, as are all the pension plans in this country, private and public. They all have what is called a normal retirement date and they all require that there be some other form of assistance for the poorest of Canadians and the middle class of Canadians, that being old age security at age 65.

Once we step into the 67 world, as the Prime Minister appears willing to do, all of those systems must move to age 67. It will not just be old age security, because that would leave an enormous gap between what all of the other pension, retirement and income systems in Canada already have. All pension plans are based on a normal retirement age and almost, without exception, they are all at age 65, not 66 or 67. Moving away from that would put enormous pressure on other plans to move in lockstep.

Many employees have planned their careers around retirement at age 65. For those whose total pension income pays less than $16,000, they count on the guaranteed income supplement to top-up their pension to a reasonable amount. For seniors who have only the old age security to count on, most of them women, it is the difference between abject poverty and living at the poverty line. However, the government is telling them to suck it up buttercup, that they should either continue working past retirement age or go on welfare for the next two years.

We do not agree that we should drag this country backward when we have worked so hard to protect the systems and security measures that are in place now.

What if those individuals were not able work another two years, as the Prime Minister suggests? Both the federal government and the Government of New Brunswick allow forced retirement at age 65. All provinces allow forced retirement in jobs that require large physical or safety requirements, such as firefighters. Employers can fire people for being too old. How would people be able to work past the age of 65 when several levels of government suggest that they can be fired at age 65? Many employers work very hard to discourage people from working past 65.

I am aware of that from my career as a union rep. As soon as the Province of Ontario eliminated forced retirement at age 65, employers went through hoops to make it difficult for people to stay on past the age of 65. They changed benefit plans, income plans and tried to make people work for less, all to try to force them to leave or quit at age 65. Why? Because the kid coming out of school will work for a lot less. That is the kind of Canada the Conservatives are building.

The Prime Minister's proposal largely affects lower and middle income Canadians. This does not bother the famous 1%. They have other income beyond CPP and OAS. Their OAS is clawed back and they never qualify for GIS, so they would not be affected by the Prime Minister's proposals.

As for the guaranteed income supplement, it is not paid to those who already have reasonable pensions. The GIS goes to the 1.7 million seniors today who otherwise would live in abject poverty. That is one in three seniors in Canada. The fastest and easiest way to cut government spending on items like the GIS is to raise the minimum pensions. If Canada pension goes up, the GIS bill goes down. There is no need to raise the retirement age to 67 if the Canada pension plan can pick up the slack and, surprise, surprise, there would be no cost to the treasury.

There are significant impacts on the provinces that no one is talking about. Welfare stops at age 65. What happens between ages 65 and 67? Provincial long-term disability is not paid past age 65. Provincial workers' compensation and WSIB is not paid past age 65. This unilateral proposal by the Prime Minister to raise the retirement age to 67 would create significant holes in provincial social assistance programs, costing millions of dollars.

Further, most private pension plans take into account OAS payments. They are interdependent. Many of them have what they call the level income option where individuals can opt for a different retirement age based on the knowledge that they will get OAS. All of those deals would be gone.

Those holes in the private sector plans would create significant costs for employers and force extra costs on the provinces. All private benefit plans depend on retirement at age 65. Private long-term disability plans all end at age 65. There would be enormous costs to employers to do this.

Has anybody talked about the domino effect of what you are proposing? What you are proposing would actually cause an enormous cascade of costs on employers, on governments and on individuals. It is not just future seniors. I know you are musing, “This is only those younger people who don't really think about retirement right now. Don't worry, we won't touch it for several years yet”.

Mr. Speaker, the other effect of this is that it would discriminate against women. Women make roughly 70% of the earnings of men in this country and, therefore, 70% of their pension. Therefore, women, by far, make up the majority of people who are reliant more so than men on OAS and GIS. What would happen to those women if the age were moved to 67? More women would be in poverty and would need to work another two years.

We like to think that we would want to move Canada forward and moving Canada forward does not mean moving the age to 67. Moving Canada forward means protecting what we have; strengthening the Canada pension system, which would, in turn, cause less of a demand on GIS; making pensions more secure against bankruptcies; and maintaining and improving the GIS, not just the little amount the Conservatives talked about in their budget but enough to take every senior out of poverty. That is what we need and that is what the government ought to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, pensions are a way of transferring income generated by people working today to those who have retired. It is a matter of intergenerational responsibility.

We hear from the government that existing seniors and those nearing retirement would not be affected. Who would be affected? The need to act is explained away by an aging population and, hence, there is a crisis, according to the government, although the experts, even the government's own expert, say there is no crisis.

If an aging population is a problem, why does the government fail to take action to address the health concerns of an aging population, for example, the rising costs of dementia, from $15 billion today to $153 billion in just 30 years, not to mention the human costs? Why is there a double standard?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very good question because the government does not appear to be focused on real issues. This is a made-up issue in order to throw a monkey wrench into our retirement system. However, there are real issues like health care, whose costs will rise and for which there need to be smarter ways of dealing with it. We need to have better investment in home care. We need to have better investment in systems that will keep people out of hospitals and keep our population healthy.

That is not what the government is about: it is about cutting things, and we are opposed to that.

We have noticed, since the debates have resumed, that the Conservatives do not listen to anyone, not the opposition members, experts or organizations, and even less so our seniors. I want to point out here that just when seniors need our help the most, this government wants to abdicate its responsibility. Poverty is on the rise among seniors, and among women in particular.

Can my colleague explain the harmful impact that increasing the retirement age will have on our seniors?

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps saying that this will not have any impact on current seniors. Maybe it will, maybe it will not. However, everyone becomes a senior at some point and there will be a definite impact. It will mean, as I said in my speech, that almost every pension system in this country will have to move to keep in lock step with this. I am fearful that this will just be the first step in a series of reductions in our social safety net, and this first one attacks seniors first.

Mr. Speaker, what I find difficult to understand is that in response to all of the great new things we as a government have done for seniors, the increase in the GIS, income splitting, other pension supports, and millions of dollars more for the new horizons for seniors program, the NDP has voted against every one of those measures. How can the NDP members stand up in the House today with any credibility and talk about seniors when they voted against every investment this Parliament has made in seniors?

Mr. Speaker, as usual we are faced with the rhetoric of “We voted against this, we voted against that”. What we voted against was $6 billion in corporate tax cuts, cuts that made the government unable to take seniors out of poverty. We are opposed to the $19 billion cost of extra prisons because of a crime agenda for crime that is not happening. We are opposed to the direction in which the government is taking us, which is what caused us to vote against the entire budget.

We are of course in favour of raising seniors out of poverty, but the Conservatives have not done that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak for a few moments in support of the motion. I thank my colleague for bringing it forward and the member for York South—Weston for some of the valid and very interesting points he has made. One thing he talked about persuasively was the cascading effect this potential change will have on benefits that have been negotiated by Canadians based on a retirement age of 65. That is extremely important for the government to consider.

I have been noting the government members' responses to the concerns raised on this side. They have suggested on most occasions that it is the official opposition that is scaring seniors and raising fears about things the government is purportedly going to do. Yet it was the Prime Minister, when he was hobnobbing with that august body in Switzerland, the World Economic Forum, who pontificated about the significant social transformation he would bring about in this country, a transformation in which the retirement income system would play a major part.

It is interesting that the Prime Minister, the leader of the Conservative Party, and none of the members opposite talked about that just a few short months ago when running in the election. None of them said to Canadians, including Canadian seniors, to vote for them to bring about a major social transformation, including cutting pensions to senior citizens. Whether now or in the future, it is all about cutting resources to seniors. They did not say anything about that. But here we are less than a year later and the government is starting to drop the hammer on seniors. Rightly so, my constituents are calling and asking what is going on. They are concerned about this.

The Prime Minister and members of the government benches are talking about changing the OAS, changing a system that often keeps people from the breadlines because of their insufficient income and who live below or very near the poverty line, seniors who as a result of health concerns and of being downsized or outplaced lost their jobs at age 62 or 63 and are trying to hang tough until age 65 when they will get a bit of a return from the contribution they have made to society. Now they are being told that the government is proposing to change that system, without it providing any details, without it having any discussion and without any consultation. They have a right to be concerned because we do not know for sure what the government is going to do.

My responsibility as the MP for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, and as my colleagues have been doing today and over the last couple of days, is to ask the government pertinent questions about why it is heading in this direction. It does not matter whether the Conservatives say they are not going to touch the system or seniors now but somewhere down the road, because a senior today and a senior tomorrow is still a senior. It is still about a person trying to make ends meet, who has contributed to our society, to our country, and made sacrifices and raised families and made this country into what it is. It is those people who are being asked by the government to carry the burden. Frankly, I do not think that is right and my colleagues agree with me.

I will talk about a couple of things the government mentions. Here, I am shocked at the way some commentators have jumped on the bandwagon to say that the system is not sustainable, that the demographics of our aging population are such that we are just not going to be able to afford it. They say this when talking about OAS, which makes up 2.7% of the gross domestic product now, a mere fraction of total economic activity in this country. The huge increase they are talking about is from 2.7% to 3.1% of GDP by the year 2031. That is the impact it is going to have relative to gross domestic product.

Some commentators have been using dollar figures, without taking into consideration inflation and the overall budget and overall revenues of the government in 2031, when suggesting this is a burden we cannot afford. That is bogus. Economists have said we need to make the comparisons on the basis of the percentage, as it relates to overall expenditures and the ability of the government to pay its bills.

It is the same with the deficit and debt, which are reviewed by rating agencies on a per capita basis and what we are able to handle on that basis. Are we able, as an economy, to pay our debts? That is the equation, and that should be the equation here. I say shame on those who are suggesting that we cannot afford to pay seniors the princely sum of $509 a month. Frankly, it is shocking.

The OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, has indicated that total public social expenditures on pensions as a percentage of GDP are estimated to be 4.7% in Canada. The average in other OECD countries is more than 7%. It has been suggested that we should look at what has happened in Europe and in the United States, where the sky is said to be falling. There is no question that some of those countries have been experiencing some significant economic pressures as a result of problems in the financial sector. However, in some of those countries, such as Italy, Germany, and Poland, social expenditures on pensions as a percentage of GDP are more like 11% to 12% or, in some cases, as high as 14%, compared to 4.7% in Canada.

Therefore, let us make relevant comparisons and not scare people. Let us actually recognize what we are facing.

The other fact is that none of these changes were indicated to Canadians on May 2 as coming down the pike. No one talked about there being a democratic crisis and that these changes would need to be made. Anyway, this government did not, back on May 2.

I understand there are things that need to be done to ensure that we pay our bills. I say that we should ensure that profitable corporations in this country start paying their fair share. We recognize that the money we are proposing to spend on F-35s can be better spent on seniors, that the money we are going to spend, the billions of dollars, to lock more Canadians up in prisons can be better spent looking after seniors today, tomorrow and into the future. That is the kind of choice this party, this opposition, is making. It is time the government recognized that it has a commitment to seniors and that it had better start living up to it.

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member's remarks. I think he would agree that the bottom line comes down to the fact that, although we are hearing different stories from a number of ministers, the Prime Minister is gouging seniors' pensions in order to try to cover the deficit that he created.

It is not just a matter of the government having its priorities wrong. I see the minister for ACOA. The government has been featherbedding ACOA, putting in place defeated Conservative candidates, friends of the Minister of National Defence, and paying them big salaries. The Conservatives have the biggest cabinet in Canadian history, all with well-paid staff. There is a bloated Prime Minister's office with 1,500 communications people. There will be an increase in the House of Commons by some 30 members, and both the other parties agreed to that.

Is it not simply a matter of the government having its priorities wrong and gouging seniors' pensions to try to cover the misplaced spending of the Government of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that it is always about choices and where we will spend our money.

We do not need to talk to seniors about what it is like to make choices. There are many seniors whom I speak to in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who make choices about whether they will be able to put enough food on the table, whether they will be able to afford to pay for their prescription drugs, and whether they will be able to obtain affordable and safe accommodation. Those are the kinds of choices seniors are making.

The government is giving a thumbs up to prisons, a thumbs up to F-35s, a thumbs up to profitable corporations, and a thumbs down to seniors, to people on unemployment, to people who are looking for services from this country. Those are not my priorities, nor are they the priorities of the Canadians I talk to.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech my colleague said that he is getting a lot of phone calls from seniors in his constituency.

I would like to have his opinion on having seniors call the closest Conservative MP to their riding. Would it be effective if more seniors were to call Conservative MPs and tell them how unhappy they are with what the government is doing?

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point. I talked to representatives of seniors' groups last week. We had a prebudget discussion in my riding. This was an issue that was raised by many people who are concerned. I told them that they could count on me as their MP to stand up when I have the opportunity, and I will take every opportunity to do this, to speak out about these issues and raise their concerns.

I told them that what we have seen from the government is absolute disrespect and contempt of democracy and Parliament. The government wants to shut down debate at every opportunity. I told them they themselves need to speak to the Conservatives. They need to make sure the government understands just how concerned they are about their future.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this debate has gotten a bit out of hand. The motion talks about rejecting calls to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, and especially on the backs of the most financially vulnerable seniors. This motion also talks about taking immediate action to deal with seniors living in poverty. Last summer, if I recall correctly, this government adopted a similar motion, so I do not understand the disconnect here.

What do the seniors in my colleague's riding think about this situation? The opposition is being accused of fearmongering. What I am hearing is that seniors are not afraid of what we are saying. They are afraid of the situation they are currently living in and they fear that it will only get worse with the announced cuts to programs and services.

Mr. Speaker, let me say what a great job the member is doing in bringing such an important resolution to the floor of the House. I thank her for doing that.

I can tell her and all members of the House that seniors in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour are not concerned about what their MP is saying. They are concerned about what the government is doing.

This morning I had long chat with a young man; he sounded young, younger than I am anyway. He was worried about his dad who is 63 and is no longer working. He wanted to know what is going to happen to his dad if the government pushes the age forward to 67. As important, he wanted to know what would happen to him if he is in the same situation as his dad when he is 63.

I told him that I would bring that point to the floor of this House today and that I would continue to raise those issues so that government members recognize the kind of stress and strain they are putting on seniors and their families from one end of the country to the other.

Mr. Speaker, last month I had the opportunity to join with the Governor General, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the national chief, as well as hundreds of first nations leaders from across the country at the crown-first nations gathering here in Ottawa. The gathering was a historic opportunity for all involved to chart the course forward toward a more prosperous and brighter future for first nations people.

During the day I met with inspirational first nations leaders who had endorsed policies of accountability and transparency that had transformed the governance of their communities. These leaders had helped to develop stronger local economies and opportunities for their residents.

While we often hear news stories of communities facing challenges, we as parliamentarians need to know that there is a generation of first nations leaders who are meeting the challenges of the past and paving the way forward to more hope, opportunity and prosperity.

I am proud to be part of a team that is committed to partnering with first nations people to build a future of economic sustainability, hope and opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the phone has been ringing off the hook in my riding since the Prime Minister announced in Davos that the Canadian retirement system would undergo significant changes.

John Wallace, a 90-year-old World War II veteran in my riding, braved the snow last Saturday to come out to my town hall meeting and express his opposition to this proposal. He does not want to see the benefits he fought so hard to secure taken away from his children. Another constituent of mine, Alan, will turn 65 this year. He called my office at 9 a.m. on Monday to ask if he would be eligible to retire in November.

The government should be taking practical, affordable measures to lift every senior out of poverty in this country. This proposal attacks the most vulnerable. People who have paid their taxes and built this country are worried about their retirement security.

On behalf of my constituents, I call on the government to stop misleading Canadians and stop these reckless cuts.

John WestonConservative
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's upcoming work in China illustrates our government's success in diversifying our economic markets. His trip also acknowledges the significance to Canada of our Asian Canadian heritage.

That heritage was showcased last weekend in the riding I represent, where almost 100 volunteers hosted over 1,000 people in a joyous celebration of the year of the dragon. The event held in West Vancouver featured traditional Chinese and Korean arts and foods. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was on hand, along with members of the diplomatic community. I thank the volunteer leaders who, with me, worked for months to stage the event. They include Jessica Li, Nellie Cheng, Audra Chuang, Esther Chu and Yun Kang.

The great success of this event is just one of many reasons that Canadians of all backgrounds watch with interest as our Prime Minister heads back to China where he will repeat the message that Canada is open for business, investment, tourism, and students who want to enrol in our schools and universities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the sealing industry and challenge the federal government to take on misguided activists whose actions hurt the industry. After thousands of years, the seal hunt remains an important part of our culture and contributes to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and all of Atlantic Canada, as well as communities in Quebec and the north.

In addition to jobs and food for Canadians, the world can benefit from seal products. The meat is rich in protein and iron. Growing demand for omega-3 has seen a demand for seal oil. Uniqueness has made seal fur a high-demand material. The seal population has exploded from two million harp seals to nearly 10 million, and from 30,000 grey seals to more than 350,000. Scientists say this could be a factor in the decline of our fish stocks, which threatens our rural communities.

The Liberal Party is committed to a commercial sealing industry. This federal government must do more to promote it and help ensure its sustainability.

It is time for all parties to stand up for the seal hunt and for those who make a living from it.

Mr. Speaker, before taking office as Canada's 28th Governor General, His Excellency the Right Hon. David Johnston proposed 10 steps that Waterloo region should take in becoming Canada's knowledge capital. Among those was to better recognize and celebrate our community leaders.

This year my friend, Ron Schlegel, was named the fourth recipient of Waterloo region's Barnraiser award. From sponsorship of sports teams to the building of neighbourhoods, to funding research to improve the lives of seniors, Ron Schlegel's involvement across Waterloo region make him an outstanding choice as Barnraiser of the year. Ron brings together people from government, business, academia and the not-for-profit sector in pursuit of his goal of a better, stronger Canada. He uses his resources to benefit his community and his country.

God bless Ron for his good work. I congratulate him on this well-deserved recognition.

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec City Society of St. Vincent de Paul, a well-known organization on both the north and south shores of the greater Quebec City region, has just celebrated its 165th anniversary. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has been helping less fortunate individuals and families since before Canada was even a country. In a society like ours, the gap between rich and poor should be smaller by now. None of our fellow citizens, particularly children and the elderly, should live in poverty. Unfortunately, nothing has changed.

In 2010, the Quebec City Society of St. Vincent de Paul helped 80,000 people through its used clothing and furniture shops and its food banks. Frédéric Ozanam, founder of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, wanted to offer people a network of charity and support. I would like to thank the 800 or so volunteers for their commendable efforts on behalf of an organization that has worked tirelessly for the past 165 years in Quebec City to fulfill its mission: alleviating poverty.

Mr. Speaker, January 14 marked the grand opening of the world-class Genesis Centre in Calgary Northeast. It is a place to share for young people, families and seniors from all backgrounds.

Before being elected to this House, I was honoured to work with incredible people like Greg and Carol Steiner, Jim Stevenson, Kelly Jones, Terry-Lyn Martin, Khalil Karbani, Romi Sidhu, Krishan Murti Goll, members of the Ahmediyya community and many more to move this project forward.

My constituents are very thankful to our Conservative government for investing $15 million in this centre through the enhancing accessibility fund.

Despite the aggressive Liberal opposition, thousands of people, many organizations and all three levels of government came together and turned the dream into reality for what I like to call the hardest working constituency in Canada, Calgary Northeast.

Mr. Speaker, I can say with confidence that Oshawa's future is in good hands.

Over the past several weeks I witnessed the future leaders of Oshawa and Canada. For example, on January 14, at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology in Oshawa, I met many brilliant young students who were passionate about robotics and technology. After spending some time listening to them and seeing their passion for science and technology, I have no doubt that they will be tomorrow's leaders and innovators.

I also met Sarah Bennett from Oshawa's Stephen G. Saywell Public School. After placing a 48 hour pay it forward challenge to her schoolmates, Sarah raised $1,323.80 for Denise House, a local women's shelter in Oshawa. Sarah's strong sense of community engagement and charity is an inspiration to all of us.

I am proud of these young individuals. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sarah for her passion and desire to make Oshawa a better place and to all the science students I met at UOIT.

Mr. Speaker, March 4 marks the city of Duncan's centennial year. Duncan has a vision to become one of the most livable small towns in Canada by building strong community ties and committing to environmental stewardship.

As a reflection of its vibrant community, Duncan is proud to have more artists and performers per capita than anywhere in Canada. The Cowichan people's influence on our shared cultural heritage contributes to the region's promising future.

Duncan, known as the city of totems, continues to revitalize itself. The dynamic city square is an appealing destination for people from across the island to come and enjoy the city's vibrant farmers' market, shops and restaurants.

I invite Canadians to come and celebrate with us. Everyone can be part of the festivities which include a year-long geocaching event, a seniors' dance, a 100 kilometre motorcycle ride and a marathon.

I look forward to participating in the Guinness World Records challenge for the world's largest fitness circuit workout.